Dublin Bus and Legal Tender

seamus

cast_iron wrote:

Is this not a contradiction? Which are you saying?

I also find it strange that they can refuse who they like - without reason whatsoever required. I wouldn't be too impressed if a driver decided to say "Sorry mate, not today - just 'cos I said" and legally get away with it.

Sorry, I did really mean to ask the first as a question - i.e. can they actually refuse to accept payment if the exact amount is provided in any guise?

Although different rules may apply to Dublin Bus (and it's quite likely they do), a business has the right to refuse service to a person, or refuse sale of a product to a person, within the confines of the equality act. Technically they can say, "because I don't want to", but if the refused person can prove illegal discrimination, then of course that's a problem.

Refusing an offer of payment for a service and refusing to provide the service are two separate cases, so I'm really asking two questions

templetonpeck

Bond-007 wrote:

Not quite. You can still use the chips in the casino as money. You can't use DB vouchers on another bus as money. There is a difference.

I don't think you need to spend 100k on this. Simply appeal a District Court decision to the High Court. You can get legal aid for that AFAIK.

Would you be able to take it in the district Court? You'd have to count what your loss would be on a given journey, which would be a ten/twenty cent. So perhaps it would be Small Claims Court? Or are we looking for a review of the whole situation in itself? Would it be worth going to the Consumer Affairs website?

I suppose we'd have to set out what we're after, monetary change isn't an option because of driver safety etc, so it's the ability to use vouchers as legal tender on subsequent bus journeys, yes?

Our man in Havana

I was thinking that DB would prosecute you for not paying the fare or get you arrested under the public order act for refusing to leave the bus after you are refused travel with the vouchers. These cases would end up in the district court and you could appeal from there direct to the high court.

If you go after them for the 20 cents in the small claims all DB will do is issue a cheque for 20 cents and that's the end of it. No point doing that at all.

The only other way is a judicial review of DBs policy. That would cost thousands. AFAIK there is free legal aid for these types of cases.
The desired result would be a ruling that DB are acting illegally in not allowing the vouchers to be used on subsequent journeys.

templetonpeck

Bond-007 wrote:

I was thinking that DB would prosecute you for not paying the fare or get you arrested under the public order act for refusing to leave the bus after you are refused travel with the vouchers. These cases would end up in the district court and you could appeal from there direct to the high court.

If you go after them for the 20 cents in the small claims all DB will do is issue a cheque for 20 cents and that's the end of it. No point doing that at all.

The only other way is a judicial review of DBs policy. That would cost thousands. AFAIK there is free legal aid for these types of cases.

Yes, but if Dublin Bus gave you a cheque in the small courts procedure, there's your precedent for others to follow. Would the prosecution for non failure to pay the fair not risk a criminal record? I agree Judicial Review not only would be too expensive but far to cumbersome. That's why I was thinking of getting in the side door through the small claims court. Their Bye Laws don't cover this issuing of vouchers business and the S of Goods Act 1980 doesn't either. What other Act would this kind of situation come under?

Zynks

templetonpeck wrote:

I suppose we'd have to set out what we're after, monetary change isn't an option because of driver safety etc, so it's the ability to use vouchers as legal tender on subsequent bus journeys, yes?

I agree that an improvement in the situation should not be at the cost of higher risk exposure for DB staff.
DB being forced to accept back the vouchers would be a great outcome.

Zynks

templetonpeck wrote:

Would the prosecution for non failure to pay the fair not risk a criminal record?

The failure to pay is equivalent to DB's failure to give change. If the court accepts that the voucher they issued is not a form of payment, then...

Surely there has to be something that refers to reciprocity.

Our man in Havana

I used to live in Reno, Nevada where the local bus company charged $1.25 per trip regardless of distance. The driver did not handle cash at all. The bus accepted notes and coins. If you say only had a $5 note you stuck it in, the machine issued a voucher like a ticket for the $3.75 change.

When you caught the next bus you simply inserted the voucher into the ticket reader and the $1.25 fare was deducted from the voucher and the voucher was returned to you for further use until all the value was used. At this point the voucher is retained by the ticket machine.

A much better system I think.

Our man in Havana

The failure to pay is equivalent to DB's failure to give change. If the court accepts that the voucher they issued is not a form of payment, then...

That would open the way to appeal it to the high court.

Zynks

I wonder if the is an angle here:

S.I. No. 27/1995:
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (UNFAIR TERMS IN CONSUMER CONTRACTS) REGULATIONS, 1995.


Link

Particularly interesting:

(5) In the exercise of its jurisdiction under paragraph (1) of this Regulation the Court shall take account of all the interests involved and in particular the public interest.

SCHEDULE 2

Guidelines for Application of the Test of Good Faith
In making an assessment of good faith, particular regard shall be had to
— the strength of the bargaining positions of the parties,
— whether the consumer had an inducement to agree to the term,
— whether the goods or services were sold or supplied to the special order of the consumer, and
— the extent to which the seller or supplier has dealt fairly and equitably with the consumer whose legitimate interests he has to take into account.

Zynks

Bond-007 wrote:

I used to live in Reno, Nevada where the local bus company charged $1.25 per trip regardless of distance. The driver did not handle cash at all. The bus accepted notes and coins. If you say only had a $5 note you stuck it in, the machine issued a voucher like a ticket for the $3.75 change.

When you caught the next bus you simply inserted the voucher into the ticket reader and the $1.25 fare was deducted from the voucher and the voucher was returned to you for further use until all the value was used. At this point the voucher is retained by the ticket machine.

A much better system I think.

That sounds like a very sensible solution. But I doubt DB would be willing to entertain such an idea.
I bet the uncollected funds with be more than enough to fund these machines.

Victor

Of course, the likely result of any case would be DB doing what many foreign bus companies do, which is to only accept coins (and prepaid tickets) and not offer any change mechanism.

Rhonda9000

What is the Act /stat. instrument underpinning Dublin Bus? Couldnt find anything useful on irishstatutebook.

(Just curious)

Our man in Havana

S.I. No. 236/1990

http://193.178.1.79/1990/en/si/0236.html

Rhonda9000

Thank you Bond

Zynks

There was an article on the Sunday Times by a writer called Sue (if I remember well), where she has started a campaign for DB to accept the vouchers as form of payment.

She also suggests DB has 1.9m in unclaimed change from last year alone, and they had the nerve to get Bertie to deliver a €390k "donation" check to a charity coming from those funds.

What would be a good word to describe people who exploit the PR angle of being philanthropic with someone else's money?

Victor

Zynks wrote:

What would be a good word to describe people who exploit the PR angle of being philanthropic with someone else's money?

Two words

An Taoiseach

.